Well-known Member

As far as I'm concerned the only possible advantage with a higher res than input format panel is that you can go to a large screen size with less visible panel structure up until the limits of the image it will start to appear overly soft.

There are all sorts of issues with different types of scaling. Not one of them will produce the results as illustrated: total waste of time and I cannot believe the muppets lining up to pat him on the back ( no offence). One reason I steer clear of the AVS forums: a few good guys but a lot of muppets who seem to thrive on persuading each other black is white.

Distinguished MemberAVForums Sponsor

Joe Kane commented on how many pixels he thought are required for accurate playback of images in a Widescreen Review article. I'll see if I can find it and type out what he said...It's going to cause a fight!

Guest

To me, it is as simple as this - CRTs don't have pixels, so you don't see any. LCD and DLP do, so you do (and they are not good). The more you have, the smaller they are and the less you will see them.

Well-known Member

dodgey, I'd agree while we are still mostly in the analogue age, as the CRT can display it accurately and LCD/DLP are only approximating it, so more pixels allows a more accurate representation of the analog original.

But as things inevitably go digital, with DVI etc (the source is already digital), things may come full circle, with the fixed panels being the accurate represenation, and CRTs approximating.

Distinguished Member

It appears the Radeon range of graphics cards are very good at interpolating lines when upscaling from the source data (it's something they were designed to do and why they are the card of choice), so it would seem Marks original post has some merit - depending on the scaler of course.

Guest

I think the implication in mr d`s post was clear-trashing Marks thread and lesser mortals than his good self who though less informed are still doing what they enjoy-and good luck to them-maybe one day they will be as "informed" as mr d and also be able to call people muppets-only time will tell.

Dont know what the bended knee comment was all about though,maybe mr d is an Al Jolson fan -hes surely been around long enough accumulating all that wealth of knowledge to remember him!

Well-known Member

I don't imply anything.
Marks illustration was eroneous whether it was meant as a joke or not. I suspect it was. Hence my reference to the muppets who followed his post.

Scaling is scaling , some good some less good. I've mentioned some of the issues with regard to whole pixel and subpixel mapping a few months ago in another thread. The idea is to hide the lack of real resolution in an image for a given size. What you cannot do is recreate actual subpixel resolution that is somehow hidden in the image... regardless of what you do : it simply isn't there. Which is contrary to what marks post is "simulating"

There are tricks and techniques that can leave you with an image that looks sharper than it really is at a given resize but its all hit and miss and never works for every situation and gives as many unwanted artifacts as benefits ( if any).

I have posted in some depth on gordon's new thread. Whilst this isn't a specific area of my speciality scaling and pulling images around through differing algorithms is something I do every day.